Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Police Discussion: Kelly inquest/Smithkey - by GUT 1 hour and 3 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: Kelly inquest/Smithkey - by GUT 1 hour and 5 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - by harry 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Other: Ripper Novel? - by Simon Wood 1 hour and 28 minutes ago.
Other: Ripper Novel? - by WastelandOfTheRipper 2 hours ago.
General Police Discussion: Kelly inquest/Smithkey - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Police Discussion: Kelly inquest/Smithkey - (32 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (15 posts)
Other: Ripper Novel? - (10 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (8 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (8 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Strictly personal ID - (6 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1111  
Old 05-09-2017, 05:15 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Thanks AS. It's easy to be dismissive of Wallace as a suspect, however, the more I think about this other scenarios seem about as equally implausible.

I'm fact, I think we are all agreed that whatever happened must have been something extraordinary. For instance, even if Parry made the Qualtrough call it doesn't by itself prove he had any involvement in the murder, as the call could have simply been intended as a practical joke, and therefore in this scenario the murder/robbery would simply be coincidental.

And the more I think of Parkes' evidence the more problematic it becomes. As I noted in my reply to Rod, if Parry was involved then we have to accept that he was able to maintain an air of normality in the company of both his girlfriend and her mother for some two hours. It therefore doesnt seem reasonable to me that he would then breakdown in front of Parkes, especially to the extent of blurting out a virtual confession..
I agree that all the theories have significant problems and issues.

With such an odd case, one has to consider outlier theories to make the puzzle pieces fit. For example, perhaps the Johnstones caught wind from Julia of Wallace's journey and that whole theory is correct. There are of course a couple significant problems with that.

Another one that was bandied about...what if the call was a practical joke but someone at the chess club heard about it and Wallace's resolve to go and decided to swing by at 730 under some bogus pretense. Maybe as someone from the club, JW would let him in.

Do I think these 2 scenarios are what happened? No, Probably not, but I don't see how they are inferior to the Parry and an unknown accomplice theory.

The reason I keep coming back to Wallace himself is his odd behavior and the seeming (to me) coincidences surrounding him if he was truly not involved plus the seeming assasination aspect of this killing (no struggle, attacked from behind), but I do concede this has to be weighed against very tight timing and a baffling lack of distress or blood on him (plus hints that Parry made the call), which is why I would not convict even thought my intuition says WHW was guilty.

Last edited by AmericanSherlock : 05-09-2017 at 05:24 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1112  
Old 05-09-2017, 09:19 PM
RodCrosby RodCrosby is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Rod,

Thanks for the reply and I will give a line item response. I think the evidence for Parry stalking Wallace is quite weak, bearing in mind that the incidents you refer to could just be coincidence. And I don't see any reason for Parry "stalking" Wallace over such a protracted period: if he was involved in the robbery he simply needed to make sure Wallace attended the chess club on the night of the Qualtrough call and to confirm his departure for the Qualtrough appointment (something he didn't even bother to do if his alibis are to be accepted.)
I agree, in themselves they are nothing really. But we can say they are not inconsistent with the idea that Parry was stalking Wallace. Why would he stalk him? Well to see if his routine changed. To time his standard movements, pace of walking etc. Wallace had his suspicions, obviously, or why else mention these sightings? Recalling that Parry mysteriously appeared in the chess room [the basement] just after the tournament was announced has to be some kind of red flag, although I concede, on its own, proof of nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
The evidence for Parry making the Qualtrough call is much stronger, akthiugh it's worth noting that Josephine Lloyd estimated that he arrived at 7:15 on the 19th which, if correct, would mean that he couldn't have made the call.
Who was more likely to be accurate, Lily or her mother? [I think the only witness in the entire case to whom we can ascribe perfect accuracy was PC Sergeant, who used his watch to confirm the time.]
We know that
a) Parry was no more than a few hundred yards from the phone box at the right time, and lied about it.
b) shortly afterwards, Parry was no more than few hundred yards from the chess club - 4 miles away from the phone box - and lied about that too...
c) On the murder night, Parry was no more than a few hundred yards from Wolverton Street, at exactly the time Wallace would be returning, and offers no fewer than five alibis to cover this short half-hour period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
There is no evidence that Parry lied in respect of the alibis he provided after 8:30. For Instance, in respect of the birthday invitation, Parry actually informed Lloyd that he had obtained an invitation for both of them, and I don't see why he would lie about this. Moreover, in the radio broadcast Leslie referred to Lloyd as "a lovely girl", so it makes sense she would have been invited, which presumably also means Parry would also have received an invitation, regardless of Leslie's animosity towards him, as they were a couple.
Parry told Goodman in 1966 that the Police had verified that he was with friends arranging a birthday party. That appears to be false, as no statements exist from the 'friends'. Williamson verifies nothing. If he could remember that Parry called sometime around the time of the murder week at 4-5pm to demand sheet music, how come he seemed oblivious to the fact that Parry called on the murder night itself around 8.40pm and spent 10 minutes discussing his birthday party, as Parry claimed? I'm not claiming that Parry didn't somehow gain an invitation to the party, but only that his specific alibi for the critical time on the Tuesday night is not supported by anyone first-hand. There is also the business of the accumulator, which sounds highly suspicious. People are often over-specific, or add irrelevant details, when they are lying or trying to conceal something, and that's what Parry's statement appears to show.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Your argument about the blood stains is well made, and I agree that they would most likely have been noticed by Lily and her mother.
If we acquit Wallace on the basis of forensics, we must also acquit Parry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Parkes' testimony is questionable to say the least. Thus, he only came forward publicly half a century after the event, by which time, somewhat conveniently, there was no one left alive who could have contradicted him. Moreover, Parkes was clearly no friend of Parry's, but we're expected to believe that the latter was stupid enough to virtually confess to a murder: "if the police found that it would hang me."
Whether or not there was anyone alive to contradict him, there were people alive to support him! Once again, Parkes was supported by two Atkinsons - one a direct witness - who could have no motive 50 years later to endorse a fairy-story from an underling which portrays them in a somewhat unfavourable light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Regarding the accomplice. There was no evidence of a break-in and Wallace himself made it clear that Julia wouldn't admit anyone she didn't know personally. Therefore, following, the robbery, the accomplice could presumably be identified by Julia just as easily as Parry would have been. And why he would an accomplice be prepared to take nearly all the risks, whilst Parry's involvement was essentially limited to making a phone call?
How could he be identified "just as easily" if he was a blank stranger? He would have to be arraigned first, and how do you do that?
Why does any criminal take a risk? Because they expect a substantial reward for minimal effort. Parry, if he was nothing else, we know was extraordinarily persuasive. He conned lots of people, even Lily's mother out of her engagement ring [according to WIlliamson]. Persuading some thug that there was only going to be a doddery, elderly woman between him and a half-share haul of perhaps 3000 in today's money would surely be no problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I don't agree with your reasoning for the perpetrator leaving with the weapon; it's far more likely that he was concerned about the issue of fingerprints. Nor is there any evidence for a confrontation: the neighbours heard nothing and there were no defensive wounds. In fact all the evidence points to Julia being taken completely by surprise, whilst she sat quietly in the chair.
It's unimportant why, and you may be right, or a bit of both, protection and forensic-awareness..
Have you not experienced an "icy" confrontation? A confrontation can be silent. A look can do it. It's still a confrontation, enough for Qualtrough to know the game was up.
The exact sequence of the assault can never be recreated perfectly, but MacFall was adamant it was near or on the left chair with an initial frontal assault, and to my untrained eye that seems plausible. Consistent with my theory that Julia was intent on leaving the house, and was stopped dead by a panicking Qualtrough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I also think it unlikely that the perpetrator would have entrusted Parry with the responsibility of disposing of the incriminating evidence. Much more likely that he would have disposed of it himself as soon as possible. In fact, it would be incredible if he were to wonder around the neighbourhood with an iron bar covered in blood and gore, calmly awaiting Parry's arrival.
Errm. the plan according to my theory was a rendezvous after the robbery at a specific place at a specific time. That place was the pitch-black dark Recreation Ground, a bare two minute walk down the back alleys of Richmond Park, involving the crossing of just one road. Why wouldn't the killer still head for that place of safety as agreed, to be spirited away by Parry's car in a matter of minutes waiting time? It was, in fact, the very opposite of "wandering around the neighbourhood."
Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Nor am I convinced with the breakdown theory. Parry spent two hours at his girlfriend's house without giving himself away, assuming he had any involvement, so why should he then suffer a mental collapse in front of Parkes who, as I noted earlier, was obviously no friend?
I said "some kind of breakdown". A loss of composure, a panic, which is only what Parkes described. It could have taken a while for Parry to learn that Julia was actually dead, a murder victim, and a little longer for it to dawn that he could soon be making the very short acquaintance of a smiling, avuncular man named Pierrepoint...

Enough to panic anyone, I would have thought, especially if they didn't actually kill anyone themselves...

Where to go? What to do? That wimpy, slightly-retarded garage hand round the corner who thinks I'm his pal will be on his own tonight.. He's my lifeline out of this mess!
__________________
"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."

Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires

Last edited by RodCrosby : 05-09-2017 at 09:42 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1113  
Old 05-09-2017, 10:06 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
I agree, in themselves they are nothing really. But we can say they are not inconsistent with the idea that Parry was stalking Wallace. Why would he stalk him? Well to see if his routine changed. To time his standard movements, pace of walking etc. Wallace had his suspicions, obviously, or why else mention these sightings? Recalling that Parry mysteriously appeared in the chess room [the basement] just after the tournament was announced has to be some kind of red flag, although I concede, on its own, proof of nothing.


Who was more likely to be accurate, Lily or her mother? [I think the only witness in the entire case to whom we can ascribe perfect accuracy was PC Sergeant, who used his watch to confirm the time.]
We know that
a) Parry was no more than a few hundred yards from the phone box at the right time, and lied about it.
b) shortly afterwards, Parry was no more than few hundred yards from the chess club - 4 miles away from the phone box - and lied about that too...
c) On the murder night, Parry was no more than a few hundred yards from Wolverton Street, at exactly the time Wallace would be returning, and offers no fewer than five alibis to cover this short half-hour period.


Parry told Goodman in 1966 that the Police had verified that he was with friends arranging a birthday party. That appears to be false, as no statements exist from the 'friends'. Williamson verifies nothing. If he could remember that Parry called sometime around the time of the murder week at 4-5pm to demand sheet music, how come he seemed oblivious to the fact that Parry called on the murder night itself around 8.40pm and spent 10 minutes discussing his birthday party, as Parry claimed? I'm not claiming that Parry didn't somehow gain an invitation to the party, but only that his specific alibi for the critical time on the Tuesday night is not supported by anyone first-hand. There is also the business of the accumulator, which sounds highly suspicious. People are often over-specific, or add irrelevant details, when they are lying or trying to conceal something, and that's what Parry's statement appears to show.


If we acquit Wallace on the basis of forensics, we must also acquit Parry.


Whether or not there was anyone alive to contradict him, there were people alive to support him! Once again, Parkes was supported by two Atkinsons - one a direct witness - who could have no motive 50 years later to endorse a fairy-story from an underling which portrays them in a somewhat unfavourable light.


How could he be identified "just as easily" if he was a blank stranger? He would have to be arraigned first, and how do you do that?
Why does any criminal take a risk? Because they expect a substantial reward for minimal effort. Parry, if he was nothing else, we know was extraordinarily persuasive. He conned lots of people, even Lily's mother out of her engagement ring [according to WIlliamson]. Persuading some thug that there was only going to be a doddery, elderly woman between him and a half-share haul of perhaps 3000 in today's money would surely be no problem.


It's unimportant why, and you may be right, or a bit of both, protection and forensic-awareness..
Have you not experienced an "icy" confrontation? A confrontation can be silent. A look can do it. It's still a confrontation, enough for Qualtrough to know the game was up.
The exact sequence of the assault can never be recreated perfectly, but MacFall was adamant it was near or on the left chair with an initial frontal assault, and to my untrained eye that seems plausible. Consistent with my theory that Julia was intent on leaving the house, and was stopped dead by a panicking Qualtrough.


Errm. the plan according to my theory was a rendezvous after the robbery at a specific place at a specific time. That place was the pitch-black dark Recreation Ground, a bare two minute walk down the back alleys of Richmond Park, involving the crossing of just one road. Why wouldn't the killer still head for that place of safety as agreed, to be spirited away by Parry's car in a matter of minutes waiting time? It was, in fact, the very opposite of "wandering around the neighbourhood."

I said "some kind of breakdown". A loss of composure, a panic, which is only what Parkes described. It could have taken a while for Parry to learn that Julia was actually dead, a murder victim, and a little longer for it to dawn that he could soon be making the very short acquaintance of a smiling, avuncular man named Pierrepoint...

Enough to panic anyone, I would have thought, especially if they didn't actually kill anyone themselves...

Where to go? What to do? That wimpy, slightly-retarded garage hand round the corner who thinks I'm his pal will be on his own tonight.. He's my lifeline out of this mess!
Parkes said once (it sounded as if it was before the murder) Parry asked him "Do you like me?" and that he told him to his face "I don't trust you", so your entire premise here is bogus.

Don't you think your Sherlock Holmes digs (all of a sudden a new quote every day) is slightly immature for a man in his 50's?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1114  
Old 05-11-2017, 10:25 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
I agree, in themselves they are nothing really. But we can say they are not inconsistent with the idea that Parry was stalking Wallace. Why would he stalk him? Well to see if his routine changed. To time his standard movements, pace of walking etc. Wallace had his suspicions, obviously, or why else mention these sightings? Recalling that Parry mysteriously appeared in the chess room [the basement] just after the tournament was announced has to be some kind of red flag, although I concede, on its own, proof of nothing.


Who was more likely to be accurate, Lily or her mother? [I think the only witness in the entire case to whom we can ascribe perfect accuracy was PC Sergeant, who used his watch to confirm the time.]
We know that
a) Parry was no more than a few hundred yards from the phone box at the right time, and lied about it.
b) shortly afterwards, Parry was no more than few hundred yards from the chess club - 4 miles away from the phone box - and lied about that too...
c) On the murder night, Parry was no more than a few hundred yards from Wolverton Street, at exactly the time Wallace would be returning, and offers no fewer than five alibis to cover this short half-hour period.


Parry told Goodman in 1966 that the Police had verified that he was with friends arranging a birthday party. That appears to be false, as no statements exist from the 'friends'. Williamson verifies nothing. If he could remember that Parry called sometime around the time of the murder week at 4-5pm to demand sheet music, how come he seemed oblivious to the fact that Parry called on the murder night itself around 8.40pm and spent 10 minutes discussing his birthday party, as Parry claimed? I'm not claiming that Parry didn't somehow gain an invitation to the party, but only that his specific alibi for the critical time on the Tuesday night is not supported by anyone first-hand. There is also the business of the accumulator, which sounds highly suspicious. People are often over-specific, or add irrelevant details, when they are lying or trying to conceal something, and that's what Parry's statement appears to show.


If we acquit Wallace on the basis of forensics, we must also acquit Parry.


Whether or not there was anyone alive to contradict him, there were people alive to support him! Once again, Parkes was supported by two Atkinsons - one a direct witness - who could have no motive 50 years later to endorse a fairy-story from an underling which portrays them in a somewhat unfavourable light.


How could he be identified "just as easily" if he was a blank stranger? He would have to be arraigned first, and how do you do that?
Why does any criminal take a risk? Because they expect a substantial reward for minimal effort. Parry, if he was nothing else, we know was extraordinarily persuasive. He conned lots of people, even Lily's mother out of her engagement ring [according to WIlliamson]. Persuading some thug that there was only going to be a doddery, elderly woman between him and a half-share haul of perhaps 3000 in today's money would surely be no problem.


It's unimportant why, and you may be right, or a bit of both, protection and forensic-awareness..
Have you not experienced an "icy" confrontation? A confrontation can be silent. A look can do it. It's still a confrontation, enough for Qualtrough to know the game was up.
The exact sequence of the assault can never be recreated perfectly, but MacFall was adamant it was near or on the left chair with an initial frontal assault, and to my untrained eye that seems plausible. Consistent with my theory that Julia was intent on leaving the house, and was stopped dead by a panicking Qualtrough.


Errm. the plan according to my theory was a rendezvous after the robbery at a specific place at a specific time. That place was the pitch-black dark Recreation Ground, a bare two minute walk down the back alleys of Richmond Park, involving the crossing of just one road. Why wouldn't the killer still head for that place of safety as agreed, to be spirited away by Parry's car in a matter of minutes waiting time? It was, in fact, the very opposite of "wandering around the neighbourhood."

I said "some kind of breakdown". A loss of composure, a panic, which is only what Parkes described. It could have taken a while for Parry to learn that Julia was actually dead, a murder victim, and a little longer for it to dawn that he could soon be making the very short acquaintance of a smiling, avuncular man named Pierrepoint...

Enough to panic anyone, I would have thought, especially if they didn't actually kill anyone themselves...

Where to go? What to do? That wimpy, slightly-retarded garage hand round the corner who thinks I'm his pal will be on his own tonight.. He's my lifeline out of this mess!
Hi Rod,

Thanks for the reply. I still don't really understand why Parry would want to stalk Wallace. For instance, what's relevant about his pace of walking? As for the Chess club, which is clearly relevant, how is stalking him any other time other than the evening of the Qualtrough call relevant?

Regarding Parry's other alibis for the night of the murder. Just because they weren't investigated doesn't mean they were disproven.

The blood evidence doesn't entirely exonerate Parry, or even Wallace for that matter. For instance, there was conflicting expert testimony on the important issue of how much blood the perpetrator would have on his person. Dr McFall was equivocal, and William Henry Roberts, the Liverpool City analyst, merely stated "I do not think there would be very much", i.e. on the basis that the assailant was wearing the Macintosh.

In respect of Wallace, his clothes were never forensically tested, nor was he subjected to a strip search. Superintendent Moore said that he examined him pretty well. However,what did this examination consist of?: "...his boots, hands, and the bottom his trousers." Doesn't seem like a particularly thorough search to me. For instance, his bare legs and feet were never inspected, which is highly significant when you consider the police argument concerning Wallace being naked under the Macintosh. Could it be possible that he rubbed off enough blood with a cloth, and maybe cleaning material, to pass Moore's somewhat cursory visual inspection? The same would also apply to Parry. Now I'm not saying I think that's what did happen, only that it can't be entirely discounted.

In respect of Parkes' account, the radio broadcast is interesting. Dolly Atkinson and her son do seem to support him up to a point. However, although both mention the car wash, I don't believe either refer to the more incriminating information-the bloody mitten and iron bar. Moreover, Dolly was attempting to recall a conversation from half a century ago and her son was giving hearsay evidence based on what his father had told him.

The interviewer was also clearly perturbed at their failure to come forward. He does say they would have done so eventually but that doesn't explain why they didn't go public during the trial; after the judge put on his black cap and passed sentence of death; during the period Wallace was considering an appeal; or during the appeals process itself. In fact, it makes you wonder when exactly they were going to jump to Wallace's defence with their vital new evidence.

Why would Parry lose his composure in front of a man like Parkes several hours after the murder took place? And I think it was clearly more than a loss of composure considering he pretty much implicated himself in a murder. And as I noted previously, why didn't Lily or her mother notice anything wrong with his demeanour, especially when you consider he was intimately acquainted with the former? Or why was he able to hold things together in front of his girlfriend for 2 hours, but then totally lose it when speaking to Parkes, "the wimpy garage kid"?


Blank stranger? I seriously doubt it. Wallace himself stated that Julia would only admit a handful of people that she was acquainted with-he even provided the police with a list. And there was no sign of a forced entry or any indication of an altercation, such as defensive wounds or a confrontation heard by the Johnsons.

Parry certainly knew how to be persuasive in respect of the ladies, on account of his undoubted charm, but the men? Leslie Williamson clearly wasn't impressed with him, and neither was Parkes, the "wimpy garage hand". And somehow, I doubt his powers of persuasion would have extended to a total psychopath, capable of bashing in Julia's head, in a frenzied attack, despite the fact that she wouldn't even have been able to recognize him if he was a "blank stranger."

The evidence also suggests Julia was taken completely by surprise, totally oblivious of the imminent danger she was in. Does that sound like someone who had just been forced to admit a dangerous stranger into the house?

Last edited by John G : 05-11-2017 at 10:45 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1115  
Old 05-11-2017, 01:40 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Rod,

Thanks for the reply. I still don't really understand why Parry would want to stalk Wallace. For instance, what's relevant about his pace of walking? As for the Chess club, which is clearly relevant, how is stalking him any other time other than the evening of the Qualtrough call relevant?

Regarding Parry's other alibis for the night of the murder. Just because they weren't investigated doesn't mean they were disproven.

The blood evidence doesn't entirely exonerate Parry, or even Wallace for that matter. For instance, there was conflicting expert testimony on the important issue of how much blood the perpetrator would have on his person. Dr McFall was equivocal, and William Henry Roberts, the Liverpool City analyst, merely stated "I do not think there would be very much", i.e. on the basis that the assailant was wearing the Macintosh.

In respect of Wallace, his clothes were never forensically tested, nor was he subjected to a strip search. Superintendent Moore said that he examined him pretty well. However,what did this examination consist of?: "...his boots, hands, and the bottom his trousers." Doesn't seem like a particularly thorough search to me. For instance, his bare legs and feet were never inspected, which is highly significant when you consider the police argument concerning Wallace being naked under the Macintosh. Could it be possible that he rubbed off enough blood with a cloth, and maybe cleaning material, to pass Moore's somewhat cursory visual inspection? The same would also apply to Parry. Now I'm not saying I think that's what did happen, only that it can't be entirely discounted.

In respect of Parkes' account, the radio broadcast is interesting. Dolly Atkinson and her son do seem to support him up to a point. However, although both mention the car wash, I don't believe either refer to the more incriminating information-the bloody mitten and iron bar. Moreover, Dolly was attempting to recall a conversation from half a century ago and her son was giving hearsay evidence based on what his father had told him.

The interviewer was also clearly perturbed at their failure to come forward. He does say they would have done so eventually but that doesn't explain why they didn't go public during the trial; after the judge put on his black cap and passed sentence of death; during the period Wallace was considering an appeal; or during the appeals process itself. In fact, it makes you wonder when exactly they were going to jump to Wallace's defence with their vital new evidence.

Why would Parry lose his composure in front of a man like Parkes several hours after the murder took place? And I think it was clearly more than a loss of composure considering he pretty much implicated himself in a murder. And as I noted previously, why didn't Lily or her mother notice anything wrong with his demeanour, especially when you consider he was intimately acquainted with the former? Or why was he able to hold things together in front of his girlfriend for 2 hours, but then totally lose it when speaking to Parkes, "the wimpy garage kid"?


Blank stranger? I seriously doubt it. Wallace himself stated that Julia would only admit a handful of people that she was acquainted with-he even provided the police with a list. And there was no sign of a forced entry or any indication of an altercation, such as defensive wounds or a confrontation heard by the Johnsons.

Parry certainly knew how to be persuasive in respect of the ladies, on account of his undoubted charm, but the men? Leslie Williamson clearly wasn't impressed with him, and neither was Parkes, the "wimpy garage hand". And somehow, I doubt his powers of persuasion would have extended to a total psychopath, capable of bashing in Julia's head, in a frenzied attack, despite the fact that she wouldn't even have been able to recognize him if he was a "blank stranger."

The evidence also suggests Julia was taken completely by surprise, totally oblivious of the imminent danger she was in. Does that sound like someone who had just been forced to admit a dangerous stranger into the house?
Hi John, I agree with most of your points here, particularly the last one.

This is why I keep coming back to Wallace, because who else would "assasinate" Julia other than Wallace himself (or someone working for him).


What do you think?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1116  
Old 05-12-2017, 03:17 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 260
Default

Hypothetically, as a thought experiment, if you knew the following 2 things:

-Wallace was guilty in some capacity (Either as murderer alone or plotter with others)

-Parry made the call

then which of the following 2 scenarios would you consider more likely?

1. Parry made the call as a prank and WHW murdered JW using the opportunity

2. WHW and Parry worked together as part of a murder plot, possibly with a 3rd party as well

My intuition tells me 1 is more likely, but then again 2 resolves the issues with Wallace as the killer (timing, lack of blood etc.), whereas 1 does not.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1117  
Old 05-12-2017, 08:48 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
Hypothetically, as a thought experiment, if you knew the following 2 things:

-Wallace was guilty in some capacity (Either as murderer alone or plotter with others)

-Parry made the call

then which of the following 2 scenarios would you consider more likely?

1. Parry made the call as a prank and WHW murdered JW using the opportunity

2. WHW and Parry worked together as part of a murder plot, possibly with a 3rd party as well

My intuition tells me 1 is more likely, but then again 2 resolves the issues with Wallace as the killer (timing, lack of blood etc.), whereas 1 does not.
I would say the second option, but I doubt Parry and Wallace would have conspired together in a murder plot.

This would be my scenario. Wallace inveigles Parry into the conspiracy by telling him he plans to steal the insurance money. However, because he's likely to be a suspect himself he needs both an alibi and an alternative suspect. Parry is therefore tricked into playing the role of Qualtrough-Wallace may have substantially exaggerated the amount of insurance money he'd collected that week- but ensures that he that he, too, has plenty of albis for the night on question in case Wallace attempts to double cross him.

Wallace then murders his wife whilst naked under the Macintosh. However, he uses a cloth and some household cleaner to get rid of any blood stains on his face or hand-at least to the extent he'll pass a visual inspection.

After faking the robbery he leaves for the tram, but on his way he secretes the murder weapon and bloodied cloth in a predetermined hiding place on the estate.

On his return home he recovers these items and meets up with Parry, who's expecting to receive his share of the loot. However, Wallace then springs a trap: He gives Parry the stolen money but, in a modified version of Rod's scenario, throws the murder weapon and cloth into Parry's car, which now potentially has incriminating blood stains.

Parry belatedly realises he's been tricked but can hardly go to the police: it would be his word against Wallace's; his car might reveal forensic traces of blood; his previous criminal record would be against him; and there would be a real possibility that he would be eventually arrested for murder, at least under the joint enterprise rule.

He may subsequently have taken his vehicle to Atkinson's garage to get it washed. However, his first instinct would be to get rid of the incriminating evidence as quickly as possible. I therefore don't believe he would turn up at Atkinson's garage over two and half hours later with a mitt converted in blood still in the vehicle: that would be incredibly stupid. Nor do I believe that he would have said anything to Parkes about getting rid of an iron bar, as that would be equally idiotic.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1118  
Old 05-12-2017, 10:54 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,831
Default

I think I may have raised this point before but it's worth repeating. If Wallace was responsible for the murder could he have simply disposed of the murder weapon, and say a rag he used to clean the blood off, by simply placing the items in a neighbour's bin-the Johnstones', for example?

The police stated that they undertook a thorough search of the area, but did this extend to searching the refuge bins of every household on the estate? If so, when did such a detailed search take place? Had the rubbish been collected by then?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1119  
Old 05-12-2017, 02:31 PM
ColdCaseJury ColdCaseJury is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: England
Posts: 266
Default Blood Stains and Wallace

JOHN G wrote:

In respect of Wallace, his clothes were never forensically tested, nor was he subjected to a strip search. Superintendent Moore said that he examined him pretty well. However,what did this examination consist of?: "...his boots, hands, and the bottom his trousers." Doesn't seem like a particularly thorough search to me. For instance, his bare legs and feet were never inspected, which is highly significant when you consider the police argument concerning Wallace being naked under the Macintosh. Could it be possible that he rubbed off enough blood with a cloth, and maybe cleaning material, to pass Moore's somewhat cursory visual inspection? The same would also apply to Parry. Now I'm not saying I think that's what did happen, only that it can't be entirely discounted.

John, some good points. WHW's clothes were tested by Benzidine. However, he (his body) was not.

Interesting facts. The nailbrush (which James Murphy makes much of) was taken away by Inspector Gold along with a carpet and towel from the bathroom (and other objects from the house). The carpet, towel and some of the other objects were tested for blood (Benzidine) - the nailbrush was not (it was not even listed in the analyst's report). It was, however, an exhibit at the trial.

The only reference to the drains being tested (Benzidine) comes from Charles St Hill on the radio broadcast, which was picked up by John Gannon. I asked John Gannon whether he had any documentary evidence to support this claim, because I have not found any. It appears there is none.

So, what do you make of this? I have a theory, but I'd been keen to hear your views.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1120  
Old 05-12-2017, 06:53 PM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 260
Default

Hi Antony, is there some way I can access the e book?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.